Monday, February 25, 2013

What really died at Auschwitz?"


What really died at Auschwitz?"


 
Here's an interesting viewpoint The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15 2011. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world. 
 
THIS WAS IN A SPANISH NEWSPAPER: 
 
"EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ" 
 
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez 
   
 
"I walked down the street in Barcelona and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. 
   
 
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. 
 
These are the people we burned. 
   
 
And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. 
   
 
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. 
   
 
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. 
   
 
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe. 
   
 
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it. 
   
 
It is now more than sixty years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, twenty million Russians, ten million Christians, and nineteen-hundred Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated.' Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. 
   
 
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world. 
   
 
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States? If our Judeo-Christian heritage is offensive to Muslims, they should pack up and move to Iran, Iraq or some other Muslim country. 
   
 
Please do not just delete this message; it will take only a minute to pass this along. We must wake up America before it's too late. 
 
I'm afraid it is too late. 
    


     Comment From Erasmus Of America Feb. 25, 2013. My book "The Early Roots Of Apostolic Christianity" is basically done and final typesetting scheduled to be completed any time this week and then release across America and abroad. I included a section on Islam quoting Mohammed that the world is flat, not rounded, and has to be balanced by the mountains. When the sun goes down each night, it 

Benjamin Fulford Blurb: Is March Going To Be The Month Of The Final Breakthrough?


The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

Benjamin Fulford Blurb: Is March Going To Be The Month Of The Final Breakthrough?
Posted By: Jordon [Send E-Mail]
Date: Monday, 25-Feb-2013 10:30:26

.
Weekly Geopolitical News and Analysis

High level geopolitical horse trading going on around right now appears to be headed towards historical changes in how the world is managed will become visible in March. Big diplomatic moves have been seen with Japan, Russia, Europe, South America, Africa and the US during the past week, although with few public announcements. These talks are in preparation for big moves expected after a new Pope and a new Chinese government, formally take the reins of power in March.
As the horse trading continues, the following potential geopolitical chess moves have been hinted at by the various factions: the Pentagon would seize Nigeria’s oil fields, North Korea would attack Beijing and Shanghai with nukes, China would start a war with India, Japan would team up with Russia, the US and India to tame China, South America would link itself to Africa etc. etc.
What all this really amounts to is the various factions showing their strengths in preparations for replacing the Western dominated world system of governance with something more representative of the actual people of the planet.
There were also responses last week from MI5 and from the Vatican P2 about the attacks on the Queen and the papacy.
 20  4  1  1  2

THE RFID CHIP - WHAT YOU NEED


THE RFID CHIP - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE CONSENTING TO BE 'CHIPPED'

Implanted without consent. Tortured by the microchip. - YouTube


This video is 1 hr 5 mins..but well worth listening to!  They have a website, too   www.icaact.org 

See Dr. B. Trower interview about what exposure to radio frequency can do to people - 30 minutes

One victim of micro chipping got cancer. 

Many older ladies were tested and found to have chips on their right or left shoulder.  The only thing different from their 'normal routine' that they had done, they said, was to have the flu shot. 

Many soldiers were found to be chipped...and certain frequencies pushed them to violence.....

The chip can also be used to force one to 'commit suicide'.

Mind control and physical torture also are potential byproducts of being chipped.

The chip can also be used to kill people of heart attacks (Brietbart?) 

BE AWARE - QUESTION - PRAY BEFORE ACCEPTING A SHOT 



Rand Paul: Why Are We Giving Money To Countries That Hate Us?



Rand Paul: Why Are We Giving Money To Countries That Hate Us?
Rand Paul was interviewed by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News about the sequester cuts, which Senator Paul has said will be a “yawn.” She asked him about his own ideas of budget cuts and referred to his proposal to cut foreign aid by about half. She wanted to know which countries he would cut aid from. He replied:
“Well, I think there’s some argument whether it’s been effective. A lot of foreign aid’s been stolen over the years. The Mubarak family in Egypt became very wealthy off of our foreign aid. In the end, when people were rioting in the streets and protesting Mubarak’s rule and protesting his martial law, he sprayed them with tear gas that he bought with our foreign aid. So I don’t think the foreign aid necessarily endeared us to the Egyptians that were rioting against Mubarak. But what I would say is I would start by cutting foreign aid from countries who are burning our flag and chanting death to America, countries that don’t really seem to be acting like our allies.”
That would be a start. But what about cutting foreign aid completely? We’re not in favor of our government handing out welfare checks and food stamps even to our own people. And we get really mad when our government hands out these freebies to illegal aliens in our country. So, why would it be OK to give out billions of dollars a year to people who aren’t even Americans at all?
It’s not constitutional to take money from some people in the form of taxes and give it to others for “charitable” purposes. That’s theft. No matter how generous our government thinks it is, it’s still our money that they’re being generous with. Taking money from us in the form of taxes or borrowing money from other countries or having the Fed print money from nothing in order to give to other countries is just as unconstitutional. If they borrow the money, we’re stuck with the bill to pay it back. If they print the money, that dilutes the value of the dollar. It’s still theft.
In her question, Greta said that “foreign aid has been very effective for us in many parts of the world in achieving certain goals.” This is kind of like saying government education has been very effective. It has been successful in achieving their real goals, but it has completely failed in achieving their stated goals.
It’s not like the billions of dollars we dole out every year to foreign countries is going to feed the starving children or to give to the poor. No, as another Paul mentioned in a presidential debate a couple years ago, foreign aid is “taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in a poor country.” Once they get the money, they get do with it just about whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm our government’s agenda. But it also means that that dictator is on the hook to do exactly as our government says to do. If not, then we seek to replace him, and if necessary take him out by assassination.
Even if foreign aid really was effective at helping poor and hungry people in foreign countries or used to build and repair the countries’ infrastructure, it would still be an unconstitutional use of American money. Especially now with our being in such financial dire straits. Now is not the time to be giving out our money to foreign dictators.

Hollywood's Pious Hypocrisy


February 25, 2013

Hollywood's Pious Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is endemic in Hollywood. That is one reason Barack Obama and other Democrats feel so welcome there. Hypocrisy is a wide spectrum disorder in Hollywood. Similar to a virus, it has many types and mutates as time goes by. There are the obvious displays.

However, one form of hypocrisy mostly escapes notice, and it cuts to the heart of the Democrats' phony posturing. President Obama slammed Mitt Romney for the same thing during the campaign but, of course, is silent when it comes to celebrities. Its practice may also be responsible for the sheer mediocrity of movies.

Hollywood stars routinely tout the virtues of the little guy battling the rich and powerful. They are legendary in their support for the income-leveling agenda of Barack Obama-while enjoying a sybaritic lifestyle (multiple houses, servants, nannies to act as proxy parents, chauffeurs) that make them the 1% of the 1%. They have access to private planes (John Travolta has a veritable air fleet) to avoid long lines and exposure to the hoi polloi at airports. These are the same planes that Barack Obama condemned while vilifying the rich. Of course, Barack Obama and his family hypocritically revel in the same luxe lifestyle.Fat cats abound in Hollywood-anyone think Obama would scathingly attack them as he has other wealthy figures?

Of course, this lifestyle sucks up as much energy as Al Gore does calories. The carbon used up by giant and multiple houses, the limos, and other accoutrements of great wealth cannot possibly be paid back to Mother Earth by showy driving around of donated Teslas. Meanwhile, Matt Damon uses Arab oil wealth to campaign against the miracle of fracking that has saved Americans many billions of dollars through cheap and relatively green natural gas and oil, while enriching communities and the "little people" across America.

In films over the last half century, villains such as terrorists, communists and criminals have been moved to the prop warehouses while the new villain has been spotlighted: big bad corporate America. The China Syndrome and Silkwood all but killed off companies involved in the nuclear renaissance in America, even though both were filled with fabrications (even the New York Times criticized Silkwood for its dishonesty). The tale of blue-collar Erin Brokovich battling a chemical company over a purported cancer-causing chemical in the eponymous movie was just that -- a tale that liberal media outlet Salon exposed as built on one inaccuracy after another. Scientists have attacked the basic premise around which the movie revolves. Ms. Brokovich has since made a career of using junk science (in the view of TIME magazine) to generate wealth for herself. 
 
The biggest inconvenient truth about Al Gore's Oscar-winning Inconvenient Truth was that it was largely propaganda -- lacking scientific validity. But does that matter to the voters in the Academy, most of whom lack college degrees, and some of whom, for example, leading liberal Barbara Streisand cannot even spell? Recall that Barack Obama called Republicans members of the flat-earth society who do not believe in science.

Who cares about science when white, Republican corporate America can be indicted on movie screens across America?
Many such movies fantasize politicians in bed with corporate titans -- crony capitalists whose friends in high places in Washington and other political centers of power grant them lucrative favors (see, for one example, State of Play where a private security company corrupts Washington). Meanwhile, as Glenn Reynolds notes, Hollywood takes advantage of tax loopholes to avoid paying its "fair share" and pulls strings in cities and states across America to be granted tax breaks, credits and outright "gifts" of money as inducements to film in certain locations. Studies have shown this comes at the expense of taxpayers and provides no economic benefit to anyone other than residents of Hollywood. The taxpayers-the little people-get screwed to reward the moguls of La-La land. Reynolds wryly comments this is not the tax story they will tell at the Oscars.

Yet what to make of the close ties between Hollywood titan Jeffrey Katzenberg and Obama? This movie mogul mega-donor was eager to tap into the Chinese market and funneled millions of dollars into the Obama campaign -- including a single event that raised far more than any other event for Obama.
Was there a payback?

Katzenberg's studio has landed a private and lucrative deal with the son of former Communist Party leader and Chinese President Jiang Zemin to obtain access to the Chinese market and to open a studio in Shanghai. That studio will help Katzenberg work around quotas on foreign-made films being allowed to enter China
The deal was made possible with help from the Obama administration who arranged a meeting between Katzenberg and top Chinese leaders. Directly after that meeting, Chinese officials flew out to Los Angeles to sign the deal. The Sunlight Foundation, the good government group, asked if this deal was fast-tracked and made possible because Katzenberg was such an important donor to Obama.

Perhaps that question was merely rhetorical. After all, crony capitalism has marked Obama's reign. Barack Obama defined politics as a way to reward one's friends. Anyone wonder if that will be carved in a future monument to Barack Obama?

While Obama campaigns for gun control and bemoans the violence that afflicts the inner cities, he remains mute when it comes to the role that Hollywood plays in creating and exacerbating that violence. If commercials can be so influential in people's minds, why can't cruelty and violence shown on screens and heard in songs -- including by some of the same rappers that Obama parties with in the White House. George Clooney has been in some very violent films yet has quite a close relationship with Barack Obama. Yet Hollywood hypocrites demand gun control across America (a video mocks their hypocrisy). They have grown wealthy by selling violence and bloodshed; others have paid the price with their grief and their lives.

There are of course more examples of Hollywood hypocrisy, but one in particular puts paid to Barack Obama's constant campaign verbiage regarding the role of opportunity in America. In his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas he was hailed for channeling Teddy Roosevelt when he stated that the "ladders of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart." At many other times he was scornful towards those who rigged the game to favor the few at the expense of the many. During his 2012 campaign he angrily stated that "he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth" (an insult clearly meant toward Mitt Romney, son of a successful auto executive and governor).

Did his fans in Hollywood hear these words -- insults that could be easily hurled at many of them as insultingly as it was towards Romney.

Nepotism in Hollywood
While flying recently I was stuck reading an in-flight magazine. There was an article on Colin Hanks, son of Tom Hanks, a huge and prominent supporter of Barack Obama. Tom Hanks endorsed and campaigned for Obama in 2008 and narrated the 17-minute Road We Traveled paean to Barack Obama that ran in 2012. The film was laced with claims regarding how wonderful Barack Obama had been for the proverbial "little Guy" struggling to survive. Colin Hanks was not featured in the movie.

But Colin was glowingly profiled in a column titled "Colin Hanks has never settled for the easy road":
Colin Hanks may come from movie-making royalty, but that doesn't mean he's resting on his laurels. For the past ­decade, Hanks has worked hard and steadily - from his breakout role in the 2002 cult film Orange County to parts on hit shows like Dexter and Mad Men. Never content to be a Hollywood flash in the pan, the 35-year-old prefers hard work to a silver spoon. "What people don't understand is that this industry isn't glitzy - it requires work and energy and a great deal of time and effort," he says. "There is so much work behind the scenes. It's actually a job." (italics mine).
 
It's actually a job! Do steelworkers think working on a Hollywood set is a "job"? Meanwhile, between Hollywood gigs he is working on a documentary on Tower Records because "Not a lot of people know the full history of the company and how it started". Imagine how deprived we have been all these years.

Now does anyone think Colin's career was not paved by his father? Does anyone think that his mother, Rita Wilson, would be in many films? Hollywood is all about suspending disbelief but it strains credulity to think that Colin was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and that the casting game was not "rigged" in his favor by his patron and padre.
But no need to pick on Colin in particular. The nepotism club in Hollywood is pervasive. Perhaps this is one reason films have been so mediocre for the last few decades.

We have Gwyneth Paltrow, another member of Hollywood royalty (mother: actress Bylthe Danner; father: Hollywood producer/director Bruce Paltrow):
"I love the English lifestyle, it's not as capitalistic as America. People don't talk about work and money, they talk about interesting things at dinner," the Shallow Gal was quoted as telling NS, the weekend magazine supplement of daily Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias. "I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans," the 34-year-old reportedly mused.
 
Needless to say, she hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama in London. Obama is for giving the little people an opportunity to succeed after all.

Sean Penn has also been DNA-lucky. His father was a famous director who gave Sean his first acting role and undoubtedly paved the path to success for his son. That certainly has not prevented Penn from attacking America as such an unfair and unjust nation-say, compared to the paradise Hugo Chavez has created. Perhaps in one area - nepotism -- he would know. Does he see the hypocrisy?

Two leftist Hollywood siblings who will never give the Barrymore family a run for their money when it comes to creating a legendary acting name are Jake Gyllenhall and his sister, Maggie. Their father is a director and their mother is a screenwriter. Could they have made it big in Hollywood on their own?

So many times when I drag myself to a movie -- hoping against hope that they will be as enjoyable as they formerly were -- I find myself disappointed. I often find that some of the key people involved in the waste of celluloid are relatives of the powers-that-be in Hollywood.

Scott Caan, currently starring in Hawaii Five-0, is the son of James Caan. Josh Brolin is the son of actor James Brolin (married to Barbara Streisand). Did family ties promote their careers? The honor roll who have either benefited from nepotism themselves or have unfairly benefited family members is extensive -- the Fonda siblings, Kate Hudson, Kiefer Sutherland, Drew Barrymore, the previously mentioned Obama fan George Clooney (aunt was Rosemary Clooney), Rob Reiner, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen (the last three critics of America for being so "unjust"), and many more.
The hypocrisy is palpable.

Now sometimes the sheer lack of talent may weed out actors (what ever happened to the upward career trajectory of Oscar-winner Mira Sorvino, daughter of actor Paul?).

However, it is far more likely the same crew gets role after role while the less well-connected toil in dead end jobs while forcing themselves to go from audition to audition, from rejection to rejection.

Meanwhile, Hollywood millionaires still tout their regard for the little guy while decrying the unfairness in America. Spare us the self-righteous piety.

For a group of people who spend a lot of time gazing at themselves in the mirror, on magazine covers and on screens across America they are a remarkably unreflective group of people. For all the looking they never see the hypocrisy.
No wonder Barack Obama finds Hollywood such a congenial place. He feels right at home.

Sheriffs rising up


Subj: Fwd: Sheriffs rising up . . . . (in their dreams, only, though)
24 February A.D. 2013

It's terrific to see law enforcement, especially the traditional, County law enforcement, standing up to the political power-play coming out of Washington.

Those organizations that don't accept any "federal money" may actually be distant enough from the system they decry to be in position to have something worth saying.

However, it's one of the great double-minded concepts in our present situation for anyone arguing "constitution" this or "constitution" that while both accepting and spending/using "funny money." It's all the more a problem for those systems or organizations that get "federal funding."

There'll come a day where the "package deal" nature of the "constitution" will strike a resonant chord. In other words, where there's any part of it missing, then it's not just that part that's missing. It's the whole that's missing.

Therefore, there'll come a day where all this "constitution-ist" thinking will give way to our present reality, for there'll come a day that it'll register that there simply cannot be a "constitution"-based system and a "funny money" system simultaneously. For there to be a "constitution"-based system, there must first be a Law of the Land "choice of law" in active application. The "best evidence" of a Law of the Land "choice of law" is the general circulation of honest weights and measures, e.g., gold and/or silver Coin.
That hasn't been the situation in "United States" (not in the United States, but rather in "United States") since circa 1965. Since that time, we've been dealing with a Law of the Sea "choice of law," for only a Law of the Sea system can tolerate the general circulation of "funny money." As was proved in the situation with Rome, straying from an honest system of weights and measures is national suicide.

At the end of the day, then, as well meaning as these Sheriffs are, and as supportive as people are from coast-to-coast of that organization of Sheriffs, they're all kidding themselves that rallying around the "constitution" is going to make one bit of difference. With every supportive donation of "funny money," they all self-confirm that we're on a totally different planet right now from a system that could in any way even begin to recognize a "constitution," much less one that could in any way be limited by such concepts.

With every "dollar" unit of "federal reserve notes" that they use in that effort, they all the more solidify the very position they say they oppose. They support their alleged opposition with every financial breathe they take.

The "law" that the vast, super-majority of this nation "votes" for every day is the Nazi-communo-fascists' promoted "choice of law," for that is what comes with the "funny money."

God [YAHUWAH] can't and won't help an flagrantly unrepentant nation, and it's about as flaming rebellious as it gets to use "funny money," which is a "vote" for the "law of man," instead of honest weights and measures.

In addition to that, IF there's a gun-grab measure initiated by the national system (which operates "federally," as in "by agreement"), THEN what the "feds" will be enforcing will be a "gotcha agreement" between the individual and that national system. For a STATE, or any of its law enforcement people, to try to interfere with the national system's enforcement of those individual obligations will be for the STATE to be liable for "tortious interference," among other things.

Therefore, IF these "constitution-ist" Sheriffs really want to make a contribution to law and order in this nation in their own communities, the very first thing they could do is teach legal reality where they live. That's a bitter pill to swallow, but the longer the "constitution-ists" live in that day dream, the worse the nightmare when reality starts to set in. They need to stop accepting "funny money," whether from the STATE or from the national system, and they need to stop promoting as law a set of concepts that have never been law in America, and absolutely have never been law in "United States." Once they get their people thinking commercially, then they'll get their people acting commercially, and in this way, they'll be in a position to distance themselves from that system that exists to vex us all.

Until they start thinking commercially, and then acting commercially, they are not only not helping themselves, but also their dragging those in their own communities right down that drain with them.

May The Lord God Almighty, as our Savior, namely YAHUSHUWAH, cure the prevailing blindness regarding our present legal reality in time for it to matter.

There are solutions to the problems, but there's nothing that's going to be solved by continuing to throw the "constitution" at things. Even America never had that set of concepts as law, and "United States" exists to deny and defy everything under the heavens regarding limited "government."

Where to start? When the Sheriffs stop accepting "money" from the national system, and when they get the small/family businesses in their communities to start allowing their patrons, patients, clients, and customers to pay the bills with honest weights and measures, they'll be establishing a "defensive perimeter" around their communities that the "feds" will have a difficult time dealing with. Not an impossible time, for the "feds" will always have the authority to enforce the "gotcha agreements" that those individuals with such "gotcha agreements" have entered into. But, where such agreements are formed under the Law of the Land standard rather than the Law of the Sea standard, the evaluation standard for those agreements is dramatically different, enough different that the seams start coming apart on the baseballs.

A "constitution-ist" Sheriff who deals solely with "funny money" is an extremely double-minded individual. May The Lord God Almighty show them the difference in time for it to matter.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net

-------- Original Message --------

From: Political Vel Craft - Veil of Polotics

http://politicalvelcraft.org/

Sheriffs Rising Up All Over Our Great Nation

Nullifying The Unconstitutional Gun Control Rules

Being Fabricated By The Banking Cabal!

"Supporting The Guardians of Liberty"


Expiration of Temporary Unlimited Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts


Expiration of Temporary Unlimited Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Expiration of Temporary Unlimited Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts

Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) provides temporary unlimited deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (NIBTAs) at all FDIC-insured depository institutions (IDIs) from December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2012 (the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision).

In anticipation of the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-45-2012 to provide related direction and guidance to IDIs.
...
Below are frequently asked questions and answers concerning the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision.

1. When the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision expires, how will noninterest-bearing transaction accounts be insured by the FDIC? What will be the impact on deposit insurance coverage on other types of accounts?

Beginning January 1, 2013, noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will no longer be insured separately from depositors’ other accounts at the same IDI.

Instead, noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will be added to any of a depositor’s other accounts in the applicable ownership category, and the aggregate balance insured up to at least the Standard Maximum Deposit Insurance Amount (SMDIA) of $250,000, per depositor, at each separately chartered IDI.

For example, if after the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision a depositor under the single ownership category has $500,000 deposited in a noninterest-bearing transaction account and $250,000 deposited in a certificate of deposit, or total deposits of $750,000, the depositor would be insured for up to $250,000 and uninsured for the remaining balance of $500,000.

Depositors should be made aware that Section 335 of the Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the SMDIA to $250,000.

2. How will the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision affect deposit insurance coverage for Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTAs)?

After December 31, 2012, funds deposited in IOLTAs will no longer be insured under the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision.

However, because IOLTAs are fiduciary accounts, they generally qualify for pass-through coverage on a per-client basis.

FDIC regulations provide that deposit accounts owned by one party but held in a fiduciary capacity by another party are eligible for pass-through deposit insurance coverage if:

(1) the deposit account records generally indicate the account's custodial or fiduciary nature and

(2) the details of the relationship and the interests of other parties in the account are ascertainable from the deposit account records or from records maintained in good faith and in the regular course of business by the depositor or by some person or entity that maintains such records for the depositor.

If an IOLTA does qualify for pass-through coverage as a fiduciary account, then each separate client for whom a law firm holds funds in an IOLTA may be insured up to $250,000 for his or her funds.

For example, if a law firm maintains an IOLTA with $250,000 attributable to Client A, $150,000 to Client B, and $75,000 to Client C, the account would be fully insured if the IOLTA meets the requirements for pass-through coverage.

If the clients have other funds at the same IDI, those funds would be added to their respective shares of the funds in the IOLTA for insurance coverage purposes.

3. How will the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision affect deposit insurance coverage for official checks?

Official checks, such as cashier’s checks and money orders issued by IDIs, are “deposits” as defined under the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. §1831(l)) and Part 330 of the FDIC’s regulations.

The payee of the official check (the party to whom the check is payable) or, if applicable, the party to whom the payee has negotiated the official check, is the insured party.

Since official checks meet the definition of a noninterest-bearing transaction account, under the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision the payee (or the party to whom the payee has endorsed the check) is insured by the FDIC for the full amount of the check through December 31, 2012.

However, after the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision, if an issuing IDI were to fail, the balance of any official checks will be added to the amount of any other deposits the payee holds in the same ownership category at the issuing IDI, and the aggregate balance insured up the payee’s applicable deposit insurance limit.

4. How will the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision affect the obligation of IDIs to pledge collateral for accounts held by government/public fund depositors?

The requirement that collateral be pledged to secure government/public deposits at IDIs is imposed by state law and not by the FDIC; there is no provision in the FDIC regulations requiring collateralization of government/public fund deposits.

However, to the extent that applicable state law requires IDIs to pledge collateral for uninsured deposits held by government/public fund depositors, after December 31, 2012, IDIs should be prepared to set aside sufficient collateral to secure the accounts of its government/public depositors whose deposits exceed $250,000.

Further questions about this matter should be directed to the responsible state regulator or state department of banking.

5. After the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision, will IDIs have any remaining obligation under 12 C.F.R. § 330.16(c)(3) to notify customers if the IDI “uses sweep arrangements, modifies the terms of an account, or takes other actions that result in funds no longer being eligible for full coverage” under the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision?

Notices pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 330.16(c)(3) will no longer be required after December 31, 2012, since the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision will no longer be in effect and noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will no longer be eligible for unlimited deposit insurance coverage, but will be subject to the same insurance limits as interest-bearing deposit accounts.

Since there will be no distinction for deposit insurance coverage between noninterest-bearing transaction accounts and interest-bearing accounts, there will be no need for the notice required under 12 C.F.R. § 330.16(c)(3).

6. After December 31, 2012, what should IDIs do with the notices (Dodd-Frank Notices) required by the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision to be posted in the lobby of the IDI’s main office, in each domestic branch and, if it offers Internet deposit services, on its Web site?

With the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision, the Dodd-Frank Notices are no longer required. As stated in FIL-45-2012, IDIs should remove all Dodd-Frank Notices from their main offices, domestic branches, and Web sites.

The FDIC suggests that IDIs should remove all Dodd-Frank Notices from their main office, branches and Web sites by January 2, 2013. If removal of all Dodd-Frank Notices by January 2, 2013 is not possible, then the FDIC expects IDIs to remove the Dodd-Frank Notices as soon as practicable.

7. How are depositors going to be notified about the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision? Are IDIs required to replace the Dodd-Frank Notice with notice of the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision?

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes no specific notice requirements on IDIs in connection with the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision. However, in FIL-45-2012, the FDIC encourages IDIs to remind their NIBTA depositors about the pending expiration of the temporary unlimited coverage for NIBTAs and the impact that expiration will have on their deposit insurance coverage.

IDIs may use any reasonable method of providing reminders to depositors, such as individual written notices to each NIBTA depositor or notices on regular account statements. IDIs may use electronic mail for depositors who ordinarily receive account information in this manner.

Below is language for such a notice to NIBTA depositors:

NOTICE OF EXPIRATION OF THE TEMPORARY FULL FDIC INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NONINTEREST-BEARING TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS

By operation of federal law, beginning January 1, 2013, funds deposited in a noninterest-bearing transaction account (including an Interest on Lawyer Trust Account) no longer will receive unlimited deposit insurance coverage by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Beginning January 1, 2013, all of a depositor’s accounts at an insured depository institution, including all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, will be insured by the FDIC up to the standard maximum deposit insurance amount ($250,000), for each deposit insurance ownership category.

For more information about FDIC insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, visit: http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unlimited/expiration.html

Institutions placing notices on regular account statements with space limitations may wish to utilize a shorter notice to NIBTA depositors, such as:

NOTICE: By federal law, as of 1/1/2013, funds in a noninterest-bearing transaction account (including an IOLTA/IOLA) will no longer receive unlimited deposit insurance coverage, but will be FDIC-insured to the legal maximum of $250,000 for each ownership category. For more information visit: http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unlimited/expiration.html

Please Note: If an IDI cannot use the above Web link in its depositor notices due to spacing or other issues, the IDI can use the following:

For more information about FDIC insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, visit “What’s New” on www.fdic.gov.

8. When should notice of the expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision be provided to NIBTA depositors?

The FDIC encourages IDIs to be proactive in reminding NIBTA depositors of the scheduled expiration. Reminders should be provided to NIBTA depositors sufficiently in advance of the insurance coverage change so depositors have adequate time to consider the impact of any change in coverage in their management of these transaction accounts.

9. What other steps should IDIs take to ensure that information provided to depositors accurately reflects the change in deposit insurance coverage for NIBTAs beginning January 1, 2013?

To ensure that NIBTA account agreements and disclosure statements provided to new IDI depositors accurately reflect the change in coverage as of January 1, 2013, IDIs should review all of their account agreements and disclosure statements used in connection with NIBTA deposits to ensure that these documents accurately reflect FDIC insurance coverage for these accounts as of January 1, 2013. IDIs should complete this review and make necessary adjustments to NIBTA account documentation promptly upon expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision.

Archived Information: Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Sections 343 and 627 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

For more information, visit www.fdic.gov  or call the FDIC toll free at 1-877-275-3342.

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unlimited/expiration.html

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/1/post/2013/02/info-about-expiring-todd-frank-act.html

STATE 2ND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT - MICHIGAN - SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS


STATE 2ND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT
Dear Michigan elected official,
adopt the below document as soon as possible
Thank you
Charlie Forster
Jones MI
49061
    
STATE 2ND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation ACT.” To prevent
federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. WE The People of Michigan ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: We The People OF Michigan find that:
A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment

SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
A. We The People OF Michigan declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as
given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this State, and shall not be recognized by any county, are specifically rejected
by that county, and shall be
considered null and void and of no effect in this county.

B. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of each County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws,
orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 3 This Second Amendment Right to bear arms applies to ALL arms and ammunition for said arms. The citizenry per the second amendment is
given the right to bear all weapons made available to the military, and ammunition to said weapons is to be readily available, this cannot be infringed upon.
''If the Government is allowed to have it the people (the employers) may have it."
Current Michigan Constitution
§ 6 Bearing of arms. Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

§ 4 Militia.
Sec. 4. The militia shall be organized, equipped and disciplined as provided by law. History: Const. 1963, Art. III, § 4, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.Former
constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. XV, §§ 1-3.

  Electors,
  Charlie Forster       &          Bonnie Frownfelter
  Jones Mi 49061                  Munising, MI 49862
                              &
   WE THE PEOPLE  OF THE STATE OF Michigan
                       www.michiganfreedejurestate.us/news.html (February 24, 2013)

2.25.13 Final Verdict


25 February, 2013 Final Verdict is Rendered 
in First Common Law Court Case against the
Vatican and Canada for Genocide Pope, Queen
and Canadian Prime Minister found Guilty of
Crimes against Humanity and Sentenced to Twenty
Five Year Prison Terms

Court Orders them to Surrender by March 4 or
face Citizens' Arrests
Link http://itccs.org with current and history reports Brussels:
Pope Benedict will go to jail for twenty five years for his role
in Crimes against Humanity, and Vatican wealth and property
is to be seized, according to today's historic verdict of the
International Common Law Court of Justice.
The Brussels-based Court handed down a unanimous guilty
verdict from its Citizen Jurors and ordered the citizens' arrest of
thirty Defendants commencing March 4 in a Court Order issued
to them today.

The verdict read in part -
"We the Citizen Jury find that the Defendants in this case are
guilty of the two indictments, that is, they are guilty of committing
or aiding and abetting Crimes against Humanity, and of being part
of an ongoing Criminal Conspiracy."
The Jury ruled that each Defendant receive a mandatory twenty
five year prison sentence without parole, and have all their personal
assets seized.

The Court went on to declare in its Order No. 022513-001 -
"The Defendants are ordered to surrender themselves voluntarily
to Peace Officers and Agents authorized by this COURT, having been
found Guilty as charged.
"The Defendants have seven days from the issuing of this ORDER,
until March 4, 2103, to comply. After March 4, 2013, an International
Arrest Warrant will be issued against these Defendants".

The guilty parties include Elizabeth Windsor, Queen of England,
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, and the head
officers of the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada.

The guilty verdict followed nearly a month of deliberations by more
than thirty sworn Citizen Jurors of the 150 case exhibits produced
by Court Prosecutors. These exhibits detailed irrefutable proof of a
massive criminal conspiracy by the Defendants' institutions to commit
and conceal Genocide on generations of children in so-called Indian
residential schools across Canada.

None of the Defendants challenged or disputed a Public Summons
issued to them last September; nor did they deny the charges made
against them, or offer counter evidence to the Court.

"Their silence told me a lot. Why wouldn't innocent people defend
their own reputation when accused of such horrible things?"
commented one Juror, based in England.




Dwell in possibility.  ~ Emily Dickinson

UCC Filings Causing Global Ripples


UCC Filings Causing Global Ripples

The members of a group calling themselves The One People’s Public Trust (OPPT) have been in the news lately, because of recent UCC filings, with regards to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
The UCC is not a U.S. law, rather a uniform code of conduct for Intra-State and Global commerce, drafted and approved by private organizations, to be enacted by the individual U.S. States, and World Governments.
It has been approved by all 50 States in the U.S., Washington, D.C., The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and The U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as all major World Governments.

http://maxkeiser.com/2013/02/24/uuc-filings-causing-global-ripples/